Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Viva Tancredo!
The "crazy people in room doing crazy things" article is a hackneyed one, sure, and I already linked a classic of the genre yesterday, but this Orange County Weekly write-up of a Tom Tancredo rally at the Nixon Library contains some high-grade kookery.
Not to be outdone, the African-American community turns out two speakers of its own, Ted Hayes and Terry Anderson. Anderson warms up the crowd with a joke that involves killing Hillary Clinton, sending hat-wearing older ladies into red-faced spasms of laughter.
Hayes says illegal immigrants are actually responsible for black poverty. “Illegal immigration is the greatest threat to black people since slavery,” he says, prompting a standing ovation. Then he starts a chant of “These colors don’t run! These colors don’t run!”
Alright, Ted Hayes! You might remember Hayes, the surly operator of the "Dome Village" homeless shelter, from Peter Bagge's cartoon on the "brown peril." Hayes' entry into the anti-immigration movement seemed to portend a coming white-black alliance against Mexican immigration, but it only portended this if you were really stupid.
Tancredo closes out the emotional night by reminding the audience that hunting down all illegal immigrants, sending them home, and building a 2,000-mile wall between us and Mexico is our calling, much like a previous generation “saved the world” during World War II. “Next, we build a wall along the Canadian border,” he proposes to thunderous applause.
Wow. I thought he was making a gaffe when he originally proposed that in the pages of Marie Claire. He wasn't.
|6.27.07 @ 10:17AM|#
Do you have any idea how much we're spending to dispose of the
corpses of illegal immigrant whales, Grotius?
What part of
"bllllloooooooooo-ooooooooooooooooooooo-wooooooooooooooo" don't you
understand?
|6.27.07 @ 10:17AM|#
How about a giant impenetrable dome over the entire US? If only we had the resolve.
|6.27.07 @ 10:18AM|#
My solution would be to build a wall completely around Tancredo so he'll never have to see another undocumented worker again.
|6.27.07 @ 10:26AM|#
"If you ask anyone in the room if they had to choose between
voting for Hillary Clinton, or Satan, they'd be with
Satan."
Takes the phrase "Lesser of two evils" to a whole new level.
brian|6.27.07 @ 10:26AM|#
John:
How about a giant impenetrable dome over the entire US? If only we
had the resolve
We'd have to have doors in it so we could get planes in and out. Of
course they would have to have combonation locks on them. How's the
code 1-2-3-4 sound?
|6.27.07 @ 10:27AM|#
Like all demogogues, his rant contains just enough truth to pull in the ignorant. Like all demogogues the bits of truth are embedded in mountains of bullshit (insert standard libertarian apology to bulls here). Here's hoping that he never gets any traction with the electorate.
|6.27.07 @ 10:32AM|#
How's the code 1-2-3-4 sound?
That's the kind of code an idiot would use on his luggage!
|6.27.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Enough with these half-measures!
What we need are giant walls built around the borders of each
state. That will reduce unwanted immigration, such as rich
people from California moving to Colorado and driving up property
values!
If that doesn't work, we could build walls around each town and
city!
|6.27.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Think outside the box, people.
If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be really,
really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how much
money we'd save!
|6.27.07 @ 10:41AM|#
How's the code 1-2-3-4 sound?
What a coincidence, that's my luggage combination!
|6.27.07 @ 10:51AM|#
tarran
you've never seen been to Beijing, they build walls around the
houses and buildings and man them with gate keepers...then there's
that whole great wall thing and the berlin wall thing...where will
it all end...
|6.27.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Tancredo closes out the emotional night by reminding the
audience that hunting down all illegal immigrants, sending them
home, and building a 2,000-mile wall between us and Mexico is our
calling, much like a previous generation "saved the world" during
World War II.
Mr. Tancredo, I don't use the word 'hero' lightly, but you are the
greatest hero in American history.
|6.27.07 @ 10:56AM|#
I am somewhat reassured that reasonoids are well versed in Mel Brooks trivia. That flags something about me that is probably not too complimentary, though.
VM|6.27.07 @ 10:56AM|#
dammit.
gotta change my combination, too (/kicks pebble).
Once at LAX I asked one of those crazies who was protesting a whole
slew of grievances what he felt about the whales. "We should nuke
the whales and give the meat to Africa. Especially the suspected
gay whales."
Even though that was ca 25 years ago (!), I'm still puzzled by
it...
D.A. Ridgely|6.27.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Spice for the stew -- Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam
(Bowling Alone) is supposedly "sitting on" new research
about the downside
of diversity.
|6.27.07 @ 11:03AM|#
If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be
really, really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how
much money we'd save!
Hell, we should take everything to the north of the Panama Canal.
Then we'd have our own Hadrian's Wall... that's already built and
paid for!
|6.27.07 @ 11:08AM|#
If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be
really, really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how
much money we'd save!
How come no one liked this idea when I said it ;-)
|6.27.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Why didn't we just make Panama a state back in the 70s? Did anyone propose this?
SPD|6.27.07 @ 11:12AM|#
Tancredo closes out the emotional night by reminding the
audience that hunting down all illegal immigrants, sending them
home, and building a 2,000-mile wall between us and Mexico is our
calling, much like a previous generation "saved the world" during
World War II.
We built a 2,000-mile wall around Germany? Huh.
How about a giant impenetrable dome over the entire US? If only
we had the resolve.
Verrrrry interesting, John. But is that to keep the United States
protected from the rest of the world, or vice versa? Also, would we
need smaller bubbles for Hawaii and Alaska, or should we cut our
losses and let them drift loose?
[/tongue-in-cheek]
|6.27.07 @ 11:14AM|#
Interviewed before the rally, Whittier resident Vince "not
'Vincente'" Estrada is quick to point out his dad was Spanish, not
Mexican. ... Estrada's mother is from Texas and, he admits, is
"probably" Mexican.
Dude's trying to pass. Burn him! Burn him!
|6.27.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Did anyone see the story about the mob that attacked and killed
the guy in Austin after he hit and injured a child during the
Junteenth Celebration? It was a black crowd and a hispanic driver.
There is a lot of tension between blacks and hispanics. Black
people generally have a different view of immigration and illegals
in particular than rich white people do.
These are strange days. I would have never believed that a third
party could ever work but I am starting to change my mind. A third
party that offered to do something about immigration could take
black and the few remaining union votes from the Democrats and
Reagan Democrats from the Republicans and cripple both parties.
|6.27.07 @ 11:29AM|#
John, it would work about as well as the GOP's efforts to rally
black support by thumping on gay people.
Illegal immigrants are unpopular among African-Americans.
Racial demogogues, even less so.
|6.27.07 @ 11:33AM|#
My solution would be to build a wall completely around
Tancredo so he'll never have to see another undocumented worker
again.
I never thought I'd say this, but...
Dan T. wins the thread.
|6.27.07 @ 11:37AM|#
"John, it would work about as well as the GOP's efforts to rally
black support by thumping on gay people."
The gay marriage issue is another winner. Black people
overwhelmingly object to gay marriage. Yet, Democrats like you tell
them to sit down and shut up about it despite the fact that Blacks
have been by far the most loyal Democratic voters for over 70 years
now. Would that cause them to vote Republican? No, there is too
much history there. But a third party that had credible black
candidates? I think that is very possible. How long are black
people going to continue to vote Democratic while the rich white
people who run the party tell them to take lower wages in the name
of open borders and let the language of the civil rights movement
be prostituted to help rich gay people get married? At some point
something has to break. Things are not static in politics. They do
change, it just takes a while. In 1925 it was inconceivable that
blacks would ever vote for the Democratic Party yet by 1936 Blacks
were overwhelmingly Democratic. People are very tired and angry
over immigration. It is the rich elite of both parties shoving a
bill down the throats of the rest of the country. A third party
could really work.
|6.27.07 @ 11:38AM|#
What can I say, Tom Tancredo has the power to bring us all
together.
Preferably on the other side of whatever wall he builds from
him.
TLB|6.27.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Somehow, I doubt the OC Weekly's interpretation of events. Now,
surely, even the most committed hack should have alluded to the
possibility that they're being misleading, right? I guess Weigel is
truly in a class his own.
Oddly enough, Weigel fails to mention what happened to
Hayes over the weekend. I guess such violations of basic rights
are OK, just as long as they serve the greater good (of profits for
crooked seekers of corporate welfare, that is).
|6.27.07 @ 11:41AM|#
The gay marriage issue is another winner. Black people
overwhelmingly object to gay marriage. Yet, Democrats like you tell
them to sit down and shut up about it despite the fact that Blacks
have been by far the most loyal Democratic voters for over 70 years
now. Would that cause them to vote Republican? No, there is too
much history there. But a third party that had credible black
candidates? I think that is very possible. How long are black
people going to continue to vote Democratic while the rich white
people who run the party tell them to take lower wages in the name
of open borders and let the language of the civil rights movement
be prostituted to help rich gay people get married? At some point
something has to break. Things are not static in politics. They do
change, it just takes a while. In 1925 it was inconceivable that
blacks would ever vote for the Democratic Party yet by 1936 Blacks
were overwhelmingly Democratic. People are very tired and angry
over immigration. It is the rich elite of both parties shoving a
bill down the throats of the rest of the country. A third party
could really work.
John, you're kind of hitting on the classic Democratic quandry -
the Democratic party is basically a collection of people who may
not like each other, but like Republicans even less.
It is interesting to consider whether the Democrats should be
willing to sacrifice the black vote in order to gain the Latino
vote (assuming that's what it takes). The numbers certainly say
"yes", don't they?
|6.27.07 @ 11:43AM|#
What can I say, Tom Tancredo has the power to bring us all
together.
Preferably on the other side of whatever wall he builds from
him.
That's two winners in one thread. You're on a roll.
|6.27.07 @ 11:51AM|#
"Next, we build a wall along the Canadian border," he
proposes to thunderous applause.
Guess I'll have to swim the Strait of Juan de Fuca instead of
hiking through the rockies.
|6.27.07 @ 11:51AM|#
If Tancredo loves blacks so much, he sure has a funny way of showing it. You know, going to speak to the neo-secessionist League of the South and all. Its strange he has a problem with Mexico taking over the southwest, but he will speak to people who support taking the South out of the Union again.
|6.27.07 @ 11:51AM|#
crimethink | June 27, 2007, 10:39am | #
Think outside the box, people.
If we invade Mexico, our southern land border will be really,
really short and much more conducive to a fence. Think how much
money we'd save!
Not only that, but if we annexed Mexico, millions of illegal aliens
would instantly become American citizens, wiping out the entire
problem!
|6.27.07 @ 11:51AM|#
carrick,
I'm currently parsing the pronouns to see if Dan T is questioning
Tancredo's patriotism. Needless to say, I'm suspicious.
|6.27.07 @ 11:52AM|#
"It is interesting to consider whether the Democrats should be
willing to sacrifice the black vote in order to gain the Latino
vote (assuming that's what it takes). The numbers certainly say
"yes", don't they?"
Two things. First, the Latino vote is not as monolithic as people
thing. There are a lot of Mexicans who have come here legally and
do not like illegals. Further, the continueing flood of illegals
screws existing immigrants just as much as it does any other low
skilled group. No one ever seems to pay attention to it, but poll
after poll says that there is a significant minority, like 35%, of
hispanics who oppose open borders. So, I am not sure that open
borders gets you a monopoly on the hispanic vote. Second, the black
vote may be smaller than it once was but it is a little like the
Jewish vote in that it is concentraited and holds sway over a lot
of house seats. If the Democrats ever lost the black vote, they
would be doomed in the house and would lose any but the most
lopsided Presidential elections.
|6.27.07 @ 11:54AM|#
Hell, we should take everything to the north of the Panama
Canal. Then we'd have our own Hadrian's Wall... that's already
built and paid for!
Don't forget to add the lions swimming in the canal, a la the
proposal in the immigration thread last week.
But I am glad to see we're thinking outside the box.
|6.27.07 @ 11:56AM|#
Two things. First, the Latino vote is not as monolithic as
people thing. There are a lot of Mexicans who have come here
legally and do not like illegals. Further, the continueing flood of
illegals screws existing immigrants just as much as it does any
other low skilled group. No one ever seems to pay attention to it,
but poll after poll says that there is a significant minority, like
35%, of hispanics who oppose open borders. So, I am not sure that
open borders gets you a monopoly on the hispanic vote.
You may be right but consider the principle of the lesser evil -
will legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens side with undocumented
workers or will they side with the xenophobes?
I can't imagine Americans of latin heritage really think that the
Minutemen and talk-radio zombies have no problem with Mexicans,
just "illegals".
Rick H.|6.27.07 @ 11:57AM|#
Did anyone see the story about the mob that attacked and
killed the guy in Austin after he hit and injured a child during
the Junteenth Celebration?
It wasn't the driver they killed - it was his passenger.
Mob rules.
|6.27.07 @ 11:58AM|#
John,
You wouldn't get "credible black candidates."
You'd get Ted Hayes, Terry Anderson, and Alan Keyes.
Your nice little theories about black voters being obedient dupes
suffering from false consciousness may make you feel better, but a
more honest evaluation leads to the inevitable conclusion that
black voters pull the level for Democrats in such stunning numbers
because the Democrats do a better job representing them.
How long are black people going to continue to vote Democratic
while the rich white people who run the party tell them to take
lower wages in the name of open borders For as long as the
anti-immigration movement continues to use George Wallace-esque
language and ideas in pushing their cause - you know, forever.
There simply cannot be an anti-immgrant movement without demonizing
the brown hordes and swearing to protect the virtue of "traditional
American culture" from them. For obvious reasons, that's not a
political style that attracts black voters.
"...and let the language of the civil rights movement be
prostituted to help rich gay people get married?" For as long as
gay marriage continues to have absolutely no effect on their lives
- you know, forever.
|6.27.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Careful carrick... there's only one letter between being on a
"roll" and just being a "troll".
CB
|6.27.07 @ 12:03PM|#
First, the Latino vote is not as monolithic as people
thing.
It is not as monolithic as the black vote (or the white male vote),
but it is becoming moreso.
So, I am not sure that open borders gets you a monopoly on the
hispanic vote.
No, it doesn't. However, the existence of a closed-borders
Republican Party getting their ropes ready for the Big Roundup gets
you a monopoly on the Hispanic vote, or something close to it.
highnumber|6.27.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Dan T.,
You should use a different handle, because we had this other guy
who commented here a lot who used that name.
|6.27.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Cracker's Boy,
Monolithic is, of course, a relative term. Heck, a million or so
black voters pick the Republican in each presidential
election.
But the white male vote is about 2:1 Republican. If you add in
other qualifiers, like Christian and heterosexual, it goes up from
there.
|6.27.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Wouldn't a wall along the border also keep illegals in? Walls are funny like that.
Liberty Dog|6.27.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Illegal immigrants are unpopular among
African-Americans.
Racial demogogues, even less so.
Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Kweise Mfume please call your
offices. Joe says you are not popular anymore.
|6.27.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Wouldn't a wall along the border also keep illegals in?
Walls are funny like that.
Well, we could always ask the guys who build it for us which side
they want to stay on.
|6.27.07 @ 12:37PM|#
We don't need a wall.
Just bring the troops home from Korea and Germany. Have them string
2000 miles of double concertina wire along the border with
Mexico.
What's the Army good for if it can't stop an invasion?
|6.27.07 @ 12:38PM|#
"Democrats do a better job representing them."
Other than affirmative action, name one issue the Democrats
represent blacks on? They screw them royally for immigration.
Clinton sold them out on welfare reform. A majority of black
Americans support school vouchers yet the Democrats will do
anything to stop vouchers in order to keep the money coming from
the teachers unions. Meanwhile genrations of inner city kids get
terrible educations. The Democratic Party is for rich, educated
white people like you, not for anyone else. Just like the
Republican Party is for the amoral corporate right. You kid
yourself all you want, but that is the truth.
|6.27.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Joe - thanks. I didn't realize it was that strong for the
Republicans... I figured it was more 50/50. After I posted, I got
to thinking that you meant that white males are monolithic in that
they will vote for a white male, ANY white male (Republican or
Democrat) before they will vote for a black candidate. Which may be
true. In that situation, I'm thinking the black vote is more
monolithic... since I have not researched it (go ahead, dump on me)
I "have a feeling" that the black voters will vote for a white
democrat before they will vote for a black republican. Monolithic
by party, not by race versus whites who are monolithic by race more
than party.
I suspect that this is changing... but like all things
race-related, they take time. I'm a white male. Thirty years ago, I
would not have voted for a black, no matter who they were. Now,
I'll vote for a black republican long before I will vote for a
white democrat (assuming that there is not a libertarian candidate
of any color/sex).
Who knows... maybe one day a woman... (just not THAT woman, if you
know what I mean).
I've voted for women before, and perhaps even voted for black
candidates without knowing it. (Since (generally) Names are more
sex-revealing than race-revealing.) My old strategy was to:
1) Vote for the candidates that I prefered.
2) If I didn't have a preference, I'd vote AGAINST the
incumbent.
3) If there wasn't an incumbent, I'd vote FOR the woman. (Chaos
theory).
CB
|6.27.07 @ 12:51PM|#
You should use a different handle, because we had this other
guy who commented here a lot who used that name.
I had the same thought. The New Witty Dan T. cannot possibly be the
same person as the Lame Troll Dan T.
|6.27.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Urban development. Voting rights. Anti-discrimination in
housing, employment, and financial services. Civil rights in
general. Community policing.
And since black people are more likely to be in families with low
levels of wealth, the entirety of the anti-poverty/universal health
care agenda.
BTW, Clinton-style welfare reform did not "screw black people
royally" - they supported much of it, as it provided (in contrast
to the demogogic welfare-queen-bashing of the Republicans in the
70s and 80s) significant assistance in employment services, child
care, and other "hand up" program. Better and fairer school
funding.
And no, your personal feelings about any or all of these agendas
are not really relevant to the question at hand - on each and every
one of them, African-American voters are solidly behind the
Democrats.
Gay marriage and school vouchers? I think we've got a pretty good
idea of how significant those issues are to black voters after the
past few elections.
|6.27.07 @ 12:55PM|#
The Democratic Party is for rich, educated white people like
you, not for anyone else.
Funny how the Democratic Party keeps winning huge majorities among
every racial, ethnic, and religious miniority in the country,
then.
|6.27.07 @ 12:56PM|#
I had the same thought. The New Witty Dan T. cannot possibly
be the same person as the Lame Troll Dan T.
No, it's me. I cannot quite explain my change in mood.
|6.27.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Dan T.,
You've always been able to turn a phrase. The difference probably
is that now you are doing so on a subject where folks agree with
you.
|6.27.07 @ 1:05PM|#
We live in a world that needs walls, and those walls have to be
built by appropriations from Congress. Who's gonna do it? You? You,
thoreau? Tom Tancredo has a greater responsibility than you could
possibly fathom. You weep for illegal immigrants, and you curse the
nativists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing
what Tom Tancredo knows. That the illegal immigrant's death in the
desert, while tragic, probably saves lives. And Tom Tancredo's
existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves
lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you
don't talk about at parties, you want Tom Tancredo on that wall,
you need Tom Tancredo on that wall.
Tom Tancredo uses words like country, culture, language... Tom
Tancredo uses these words as the backbone of a life spent defending
something. You use them as a punchline. Tom Tancredo has neither
the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a man who rises
and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that Tom Tancredo
provides, and then questions the manner in which Tom Tancredo
provides it. Tom Tancredo would rather you just said thank you, and
went on your way, Otherwise, Tom Tancredo suggests you pick up a
weapon, and stand a post. Either way, Tom Tancredo doesn't give a
damn what you think you are entitled to!
highnumber|6.27.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Um, about Dan T., that is, not about MikeP's screed.
(Just kidding about "screed," MikeP. I didn't read what you wrote,
but it was long.)
TLB|6.27.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Mini-Weigel! Despite what someone else said above, TomTancredo
didn't
attend a LeagueOfTheSouth meeting. Members of that group
attended a meeting organized by another group.
The group that started that lie has an indirect link to the
MexicanGovernment.
You learn something new everyday, just not from Reason's
contributors.
|6.27.07 @ 1:08PM|#
I ometimes forget Joe that you are a Democratic automaton incapable of any self awareness or criticism of the Democratic Party. I love your comment on school vouchers. I guess black just don't give a shit and love the teacher's unions so much that they are willing to sell their kids' futures for the sake of a government funded monopoly. The point is not that black people haven't or are not voting Democrat. The point is that the Democrats are completely screwing black people and that cannot go on forever without some kind of consequences. Live in denial all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
Rhywun|6.27.07 @ 1:13PM|#
let the language of the civil rights movement be prostituted
to help rich gay people get married?
Some of my best friends are gay!
|6.27.07 @ 1:18PM|#
The point is that the Democrats are completely screwing
black people and that cannot go on forever without some kind of
consequences.
I think it's more like the Democrats are giving blacks about a 75%
screwing and it simply makes more sense to vote Dem when the other
choice is a party that really will give them a complete
screwing.
|6.27.07 @ 1:19PM|#
I say we be nice to Dan as long as he keeps this up.
Good going, Dan.
Thanks. It will be interesting to see who gives in first...heh
|6.27.07 @ 1:26PM|#
If only black people would listen to John.
"I guess black just don't give a shit and love the teacher's unions
so much that they are willing to sell their kids' futures for the
sake of a government funded monopoly."
Nah, they complain about lousy schools all the time - AND YET, when
given a choice between Republicans who agree with them on school
vouchers, immigration, and gay marriage or any Democrat this side
of Zell Miller, they pick the Democrat every single time. That's
because school vouchers may be more popular than nothing, but
Democratic ideas for school reform are even more popular than
vouchers.
VM|6.27.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Hey Rhywun!
awesome pics on your blog. The Sunday Walk series is terrific!
Thanks for posting them!
|6.27.07 @ 1:36PM|#
joe -
why are you the only one that gets to make sweeping generalizations
about black people?
|6.27.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Oh really TLB? I guess the LOS themselves must be a front for
the SecretMexicanShadowGovernment.
It has Tancredo listed as a guest, asshat.
highnumber|6.27.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Reinmoose,
I forgot that you weren't at that meeting.
joe got black people.
Grand Chalupa got Middle Easterners.
Lonewacko got Mexicans.
Jennifer got people with kids.
John got Democrats.
Guy Montag got everyone against the Iraq war.
VikingMoose got Mr Steven Crane.
Urkobold got physicists.
I got Rush fans (both kinds).
I think you were assigned Christian White Supremacists. Fire away.
It's an easy target.
|6.27.07 @ 1:53PM|#
:(
I was hoping for something more challenging... though I guess I am
qualified as an authority on Christian White Supremacists, seeing
as there is no shortage of them in my extended family (though they
are slowly dying off).
|6.27.07 @ 2:07PM|#
here are a lot of Mexicans who have come here legally and do
not like illegals.
As evidenced by the massive latino-driven anti-immigration
deomnstrations marching through the streets of LA, NYC, etc.
Rhywun|6.27.07 @ 2:10PM|#
VM,
I didn't know anybody followed those damn links - I never do... I
only put that in there in hopes that my browser would save my info.
Glad you enjoyed the meager pickings.
|6.27.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Discussing the aggregate behavior of groups is not "making sweeping generalizaitons." Generalizing requires the additional step of assuming that individual behavior will match that of the group's aggregate behavior.
TLB|6.27.07 @ 2:57PM|#
I believe I've already supplied this link.
Let me suggest reading it.
Had the SPL gotten in contact with AmericansHaveHadEnough! or
Tancredoscampaign, they would have found out that these guys had
nothing to do with the event. Perhaps the SouthernPovertyLawCenter
can explain that when they correct the record and, if they have any
common decency, apologize to TomTancredo for smearing him in this
fashion. Update #1: I spoke to JamesLayden, the Chairman of the
SouthCarolinaLeagueoftheSouth. He was very polite, but was also a
little foggy on what his group's involvement was with the event, if
they had any beyond encouraging their members to go.
However, he did say definitively that they did not sponsor
the event.
|6.27.07 @ 3:03PM|#
NoOneEverSaidTheySponsoredTheEventTheySaidTomTancredoSpokeToLeagueOfTheSouthMembers.
WhichHeDid.
|6.27.07 @ 3:17PM|#
I forgot that you weren't at that meeting.
^#,
I showed up for the meeting, but Urkobold™ told me it had been
rescheduled due to a meeting of the American Union of Blog Trolls
(Local #419).
I knew something sounded fishy about that. Dammit.
Are there any groups left? I'll even take "fraudulent
psychics."
|6.27.07 @ 3:30PM|#
Your attempt to show your superior command of semantics failed
in that you defined stereotyping, not generalizing. Generalizing is
examining the behavior of a few individuals and assuming the whole
group acts that way, rather than stereotyping which is attributing
the perceived qualities of a group to an individual.
Way to actually not answer the question.
Also, people who are "discussing the aggregate behavior of groups"
usually don't invest themselves so emotionally in their
statements.
|6.27.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I'll even take "fraudulent psychics."
As opposed to legitimate ones?
Good point. I apologize for the redundancy.
|6.27.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Generalizing is examining the behavior of a few individuals
and assuming the whole group acts that way, rather than
stereotyping which is attributing the perceived qualities of a
group to an individual.
Regardless, I've done neither.
I made easily-verifiable statements about broad trends, which did
not rely on observations of "a few individuals," and made no
statements about any group "as a whole," just about their political
preferences in the aggregate.
TLB|6.27.07 @ 3:47PM|#
I usually ignore Cesar, and this is going to be my last reply on
this topic. The claim
This page (splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=79) says: "League
of the South (LOS), a neo-Confederate hate group, hosted a
barbeque"
As RWN discusses at the link above, that claim is false.
They backpeddle here:
splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=706
As stated above, the SPLC has an indirect link to the
MexicanGovernment. Obvious, joining a coalition headed by someone
who's collaborating with that government and who's written an
"OppositionResearch" paper for that government and who was at least
introduced to clients by that government doesn't concern
them.
And, of course, I'm still waiting for the "civil libertarians" at
Reason to discuss how TedHayes' FirstAmendment rights were violated
(see my first link way above).
I guess snark in support of corporatism is more important than
discussing a clear violation of someone's FirstAmendment
rights.
Finishing the equation|6.27.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Jake Boone,
I'll have to check the minutes, but I'm pretty sure you got
bestiality opponents.
No, that's not a typo. One of those nutjobs who shows up only for
the animal rights' posts swooped in and took the proponents.
You're stuck making sweeping generalizations about almost everyone
as a whole.
|6.27.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Aw, crap. Well, okay, I suppose I'd better get to work crafting
a sweeping generalization about bestiality opponents...
Bestiality opponents... umm... all oppose bestiality!
Hmm. Doesn't really have the zing to it I was hoping for.
Reinmoose, you wanna trade?
Rhywun|6.28.07 @ 1:05AM|#
hey rhywun, where in bay ridge?
Right off the Bay Ridge Ave. station on the R. I moved here from
Chelsea a couple months ago and quadrupled my space for less
rent.
|6.28.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245